Evidence of meeting #137 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Butts.
Now I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Cooper.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Butts. You indicated that you know Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Marques well. Would it be fair to say you spoke with them every day?
As an Individual
No. Well, I would say that for four of the weeks in question that you're examining here, I was in Washington, so it was certainly not every day in the effective time period.
As an Individual
From time to time they were, on a wide variety of matters, yes.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Then you would have been aware of their activities on the file, in general terms?
As an Individual
In general, I would. I mean, I certainly gave them overall direction, and they would report back from time to time.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Okay.
You mentioned that you were briefed by the Prime Minister immediately after the September 17 meeting.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
I thought I heard you say you were briefed immediately after the September 17 meeting on with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, the Clerk, and the Prime Minister.
As an Individual
I did not say “immediately after”, and to be honest, I don't recall whether the Clerk or the Prime Minister debriefed me on the meeting.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Not that you know of, but we do know that on October 18, Mr. Bouchard asked Jody Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff for an outside opinion. The answer was no. On October 26, Mr. Bouchard again asked Jody Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff for an outside opinion, and the answer was no. On November 22, Jody Wilson-Raybould was called by the PMO to meet with Mr. Marques and Mr. Bouchard. The issue of an outside opinion was raised again, and again Ms. Wilson-Raybould said no. Then on December 18, at the meeting with Ms. Prince and in conjunction with Ms. Telford, you were again asking for an outside opinion. That was several months later.
What could you possibly have understood her answer to be other than no, that she had made her decision and she was not going to overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions?
As an Individual
Whether she would accept external advice and whether she would overturn the decision of the DPP are two different questions. In fact, I believe the distance between those two things, Mr. Cooper, is at the heart of the matter at hand.
My perspective on this—and it was informed by professional public service advice—was that there was nothing wrong with discussing this. As I said in my testimony, I was not pressing in any way, shape or form that anyone overturn the decision. It's really important that we establish that as a fact, and it is—
As an Individual
Please let me finish, sir, with respect.
It's an important fact, because it is one of the few facts that seem to be shared. The former minister testified that last week, and that was certainly my understanding.
What I said in my statement about the meeting with Ms. Prince was that I sought to understand the former minister's reticence on that file and on the concept of receiving independent advice. I made the case for doing so as a matter of sound public policy.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
In other words, there was not a respect for her judgment to review the facts and review the law in the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion to overturn a decision that had already been made by the DPP, having regard for the facts and having regard for the law.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Please just note that this was the last question. I'll let the witness respond.
As an Individual
Sure, and I'm happy to respond, Mr. Chair.
I should have said this more vividly at the outset, but I appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak with colleagues. The matter you're discussing is important, and I hope the evidence I've provided can aid in your deliberations.
At the end of the day, we really didn't feel that anybody was doing anything wrong. We felt these were honest discussions, and I would ask you to deliberate on the question. If this was wrong, and wrong in the way it is alleged to have been wrong, why are we having this discussion now and not in the middle of September or October or November or December?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We're now going to go to Mr. Ehsassi. Mr. Ehsassi, you have six minutes.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Butts, for appearing before our committee. It has been very helpful, especially your opening comments.
You delved at length into the decisions that animated the changes in cabinet—
As an Individual
—which I'm sure will make me a lot of friends, but I was under obligation to do so.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Absolutely.
You were saying in your opening remarks that the first time SNC and the issue of deferred prosecutions came up was when it was raised by former Minister Philpott. Is that correct?
As an Individual
In the context of the cabinet shuffle, that is correct, yes.